5 ms·

US Startup-visa to be debated in 2010

15 points by nreece 17y ago

JimmyL 17y ago
For more detail as to what Polis is proposing, see: - The full text o fthe Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4259 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4259) - His press release on it (http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=160902 http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=1...) - A summary of the Act from his office (http://polis.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_4259_Employment_Benefit_Act_Summary.pdf http://polis.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_4259_Employment_Bene...) - Its GovTrack entry (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4259 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4259) Its current status, for the record, is that it's been introduced (with no co-sponsors) and referred to the Judiciary committee. As for what's a "start up", it looks like the Act's requirements are $250K from a US-based VC or $100K from a non-family citizen/green-card Angel, as well as a business plan that will create 5+ jobs or be profitable and take in $1M in revenue. Interestingly, if the Angel is well-established (5+ investments totaling $250K+ in the past three years), the Act would waive the requirement that they be in any way American.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Requiring a business plan is probably a good idea in that it may help prevent these visas being sold (100k + sponsoring fee may be reasonable?).
geebee 17y ago
I am so worried about this visa. I understand why so many people consider it a no brainer. Who wouldn't want to allow entrepreneurs who create massive wealth and jobs into the country. Anyone opposed must be a xenophobe, right? The problem is, I've seen where this logic took the H1B visa, and my confidence in employer sponsored immigration programs has been shattered. I consider the H1B to be an utterly corrupt program, even if it has been used to bring some indisputably excellent people here. I hate the idea that an investor would have the power to determine whether someone is allowed to live and work in the US. I hate it somewhat less than the idea that an employer would be allowed to do this, but I still hate it. All people in the US need to be free. Free to work, free to quit, free to move, free to change careers, free to go to law school, you know, free, as in freedom. Any visa that allows you in here but with conditions, like "to be an engineer", or "to do a startup" is bad in the first place. Any one that allows an employer or investor to decide if you get to move (and stay) here is even worse. This power will be abused, count on it. How about this: allow in some excellent people, a lot but not an unlimited number,and let them do what they want, without asking the permission of their employer or their investor.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  I agree that giving the power of extradition to an employer or investor is ultimately going to undermine the benefits that the business relationship brought in the first place. However, how do you define 'excellent'? A uni degree isn't indicative of excellent. It's not even a required component of 'excellent'.
  - geebee 17y ago
    I don't know how to define excellent... I think the question is, should we make an attempt to select for positive qualities, or just accept almost completely random immigration. I've read about Australia's points system, and I'd say it's a big improvement over the US's system. I like Australia's system because it doesn't overly emphasize engineering or technology - sure, those are good attributes, but so is a background in nursing, medicine, plumbing, law, and so forth. It also (appears to) preserves freedom for the immigrant. I'd like to see any worker visa category in the US awarded directly to the immigrant, with no obligation to remain with the sponsoring employer. But there's no real way around the point you're making - any attempt to select for "excellence" is going to make use of formal credentials, like university degrees, membership in the bar, possession of a plumbing license, and so forth... and this is a problem considering that people like Steve Jobs had none of these things. So maybe some randomness would help. The real problem, I think, is that the only truly free system would be unlimited mobility across national borders, which is a practical impossibility right now. Any meaningful limits are going to leave some people who would have been good contributors out.
    - netcan 17y ago
      The point system is for the various classes of permanent residency applications so it's not really apple's 2 apple's. There are also sponsored visa programs that come with employer, industry or geography restrictions from the family of US H1B visas. I'm currently in application in Australia, knee deep. Australia's system has it's own problems with it's own unintended consequences. It's very complicated. There are many similar visa classes each with their own rules that get tweaked constantly. That is by design. The system is intended to respond to a need for electrical engineers or plumbers as they come up. There is preference for local graduates of 2 year certification courses (nursing, social work, IT, welding, etc, etc.). This means that private TAFEs have agents going around India, China & Malaysia selling Permanent Residency courses that can be easily funded by "earning while you learn," virtually impossible for most people. There are stories of people expecting crazed recruiters for cushy jobs waiting at the airports while not actually having any idea what their course is about (nothing gets called what it is any more & the official descriptions are often completely meaningless). The low end of 2 year training courses are a boom business. All sorts of abuse, corruption & mess. I agree with you about preserving the rights of the immigrant. I don't think it's possible to do this though whil immigration is this restricted in the world.

15 points by nreece 17y ago

For more detail as to what Polis is proposing, see: - The full text o fthe Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4259 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4259) - His press release on it (http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=160902 http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=1...) - A summary of the Act from his office (http://polis.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_4259_Employment_Benefit_Act_Summary.pdf http://polis.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_4259_Employment_Bene...) - Its GovTrack entry (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4259 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4259) Its current status, for the record, is that it's been introduced (with no co-sponsors) and referred to the Judiciary committee. As for what's a "start up", it looks like the Act's requirements are $250K from a US-based VC or $100K from a non-family citizen/green-card Angel, as well as a business plan that will create 5+ jobs or be profitable and take in $1M in revenue. Interestingly, if the Angel is well-established (5+ investments totaling $250K+ in the past three years), the Act would waive the requirement that they be in any way American.

nopassrecover 17y ago
Requiring a business plan is probably a good idea in that it may help prevent these visas being sold (100k + sponsoring fee may be reasonable?).

geebee 17y ago

I am so worried about this visa. I understand why so many people consider it a no brainer. Who wouldn't want to allow entrepreneurs who create massive wealth and jobs into the country. Anyone opposed must be a xenophobe, right? The problem is, I've seen where this logic took the H1B visa, and my confidence in employer sponsored immigration programs has been shattered. I consider the H1B to be an utterly corrupt program, even if it has been used to bring some indisputably excellent people here. I hate the idea that an investor would have the power to determine whether someone is allowed to live and work in the US. I hate it somewhat less than the idea that an employer would be allowed to do this, but I still hate it. All people in the US need to be free. Free to work, free to quit, free to move, free to change careers, free to go to law school, you know, free, as in freedom. Any visa that allows you in here but with conditions, like "to be an engineer", or "to do a startup" is bad in the first place. Any one that allows an employer or investor to decide if you get to move (and stay) here is even worse. This power will be abused, count on it. How about this: allow in some excellent people, a lot but not an unlimited number,and let them do what they want, without asking the permission of their employer or their investor.

nopassrecover 17y ago
I agree that giving the power of extradition to an employer or investor is ultimately going to undermine the benefits that the business relationship brought in the first place. However, how do you define 'excellent'? A uni degree isn't indicative of excellent. It's not even a required component of 'excellent'.
- geebee 17y ago
  I don't know how to define excellent... I think the question is, should we make an attempt to select for positive qualities, or just accept almost completely random immigration. I've read about Australia's points system, and I'd say it's a big improvement over the US's system. I like Australia's system because it doesn't overly emphasize engineering or technology - sure, those are good attributes, but so is a background in nursing, medicine, plumbing, law, and so forth. It also (appears to) preserves freedom for the immigrant. I'd like to see any worker visa category in the US awarded directly to the immigrant, with no obligation to remain with the sponsoring employer. But there's no real way around the point you're making - any attempt to select for "excellence" is going to make use of formal credentials, like university degrees, membership in the bar, possession of a plumbing license, and so forth... and this is a problem considering that people like Steve Jobs had none of these things. So maybe some randomness would help. The real problem, I think, is that the only truly free system would be unlimited mobility across national borders, which is a practical impossibility right now. Any meaningful limits are going to leave some people who would have been good contributors out.
  - netcan 17y ago
    The point system is for the various classes of permanent residency applications so it's not really apple's 2 apple's. There are also sponsored visa programs that come with employer, industry or geography restrictions from the family of US H1B visas. I'm currently in application in Australia, knee deep. Australia's system has it's own problems with it's own unintended consequences. It's very complicated. There are many similar visa classes each with their own rules that get tweaked constantly. That is by design. The system is intended to respond to a need for electrical engineers or plumbers as they come up. There is preference for local graduates of 2 year certification courses (nursing, social work, IT, welding, etc, etc.). This means that private TAFEs have agents going around India, China & Malaysia selling Permanent Residency courses that can be easily funded by "earning while you learn," virtually impossible for most people. There are stories of people expecting crazed recruiters for cushy jobs waiting at the airports while not actually having any idea what their course is about (nothing gets called what it is any more & the official descriptions are often completely meaningless). The low end of 2 year training courses are a boom business. All sorts of abuse, corruption & mess. I agree with you about preserving the rights of the immigrant. I don't think it's possible to do this though whil immigration is this restricted in the world.